Forbes ranks the 400 wealthiest people in the U.S.

(CBS/AP) NEW YORK - Microsoft (MSFT) co-founder Bill Gates remains the nation's richest man by far, as the tech and philanthropy giant took the top spot on the Forbes 400 list with a net worth of $66 billion.

Pictures: World's wealthiest people

Investor Warren Buffett, the head of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), again took second with $46 billion, while Oracle (ORCL) co-founder Larry Ellison remains third with $41 billion and brothers Charles and David Koch, co-owners of Koch Industries, tied for fourth with $31 billion.

Forbes said the rich mainly got richer in 2012, with net worth rising for 241 members of its list and shrinking for only 66. Rising stock prices, a rebound in real estate values and rare art prices helped.

More members of the Walton family, the founders of Walmart (WMT), moved up into the Top 10, displacing investor George Soros and Las Vegas Sands (LVS) founder Sheldon Adelson. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who made his fortune with the financial data services firm Bloomberg LP, is also back with the top dogs at No. 10 with an estimated net worth of $25 billion.

Facebook CEO slips down rich list
Celebs who went from failures to success stories
10 most popular vehicles in America's richest neighborhoods

Social media moguls took the biggest hit. Zynga's Mark Pincus (ZNGA) and Groupon's (GRPN) Eric Lefkofsky dropped off the list entirely. Facebook's (FB) Mark Zuckerberg was the biggest dollar loser in Forbes' latest ranking of the 400 wealthiest Americans. The company's lackluster IPO in May resulted in a huge drop in market value that cut the value of his shareholdings almost in half, costing him $8.1 billion in net worth. That dropped Zuckerberg from No. 14 on the list to No. 36.

But although Zuckerberg lost more money than most people will make in many lifetimes, his net worth still totals an estimated $9.4 billion, according to the magazine.

Twenty newcomers joined the list, which required $1.1 billion in net worth for entry, up from $1.05 billion a year ago. Among the freshly minted are Shahid Khan, owner of the NFL's Jacksonville Jaguars, at No. 179; Judy Faulkner, founder of health records firm Epic Systems, at No. 285; Andrew & Peggy Cherng, the husband and wife team behind restaurant chain Panda Express, at No. 239; and Twitter creator Jack Dorsey at No. 392.

There are 45 women on the list, up from 42 a year ago, including Oprah Winfrey at No. 151.

The top 10 people on this year's Forbes 400 list are:

• Bill Gates, $66 billion

• Warren Buffett, $46 billion

• Larry Ellison, $41 billion

• Charles Koch, $31 billion

• David Koch, $31 billion

• Christy Walton & family, $27.9 billion

• Jim Walton, $26.8 billion

• Alice Walton, $26.3 billion

• S. Robson Walton, $26.1 billion

• Michael Bloomberg, $25 billion

[eroteme2]

Obama is not on his list. But he is not exactly poor. There are not many of us who could spend $68,000 a year for schooling two children, $34,000 each, in an elite private school.

[nolapearl]

And Walmart can't afford health care for part time hourly employees. It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle....

[ThomasSense]

The Koch's and Walton's are Republicans. They have $170 billion dollars together. Are these the "job creators" that Republicans are talking about?

[littlebuddyd]

Gates and Buffet are Dems......So what!

[bramletabercrombie]

Gates and Buffet have both pledged to give their fortunes to charity. How many of the greedy republicans billionaires have done the same?

[bramletabercrombie]

"The laws of capitalism, which are blind and are invisible to ordinary people, act upon the individual without he or she being aware of it. One sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon ahead. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller; whether or not it is true, about the possibilities of individual success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for a Rockefeller to emerge, and the amount of depravity entailed in the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible for the popular forces to expose this clearly ... It is a contest among wolves. One can win only at the cost of the failure of others."


My system would make it easier for a man to pick himself up by the bootstraps and become a millionaire, but it would be almost impossible to ever become a billionaire. You would have to work incredibly hard. To do this I would "exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

[littlebuddyd]

Blah Blah Blah.....

Besides I've been hearing about this so called pleg for at least 10 years and yet there fortunes are still the largest in the land. Do you know when Hurricane Mitch hit Honduras and destroyed 100,000 homes with floods and avalanches Bill Gates could have built 100,000 new homes at a cost of les than $1 billion out of his pocket and would have barely touched his furtune. Let see him do that and I'll be impressed with him "giving it all away". Same goes for Warren Buffet.

[fredm6900]

This is a contest of who will be the richest man or woman in the cemetery. Publications like that makes people think that is all right to be greedy, money in first place, or that running for money is the only thing that counts.
It can make people think, of those who have money, they have also something important to say, are special, or have more value as a person. This is so stupid as wrong!
The human specie is deplorable.

[ParadoxisOK]

I agree it is just plain wrong.

They may have "earned" this money, but they didn't earn it by themselves....they had economic slaves that earned them their wealth. Frankly, they should be ashamed, hiding their monies in some foreign banks while in America there are children that are homeless, going hungry, have no access to medical care and with no dreams of education beyond high school.

It amazes me as to how these folks manage to hide such wealth and why do they do that!? A human need to hoard, maybe?

[lloydbest1]

Adding up the numbers from the top ten, I arrive at a figure of $316.1 billion. Assuming the remaining 390 of the top 400 all have the mandated $1.1B and adding up their collective wealth we arrive at an astounding figure of $845 Billion for the lot.

Using, as a more reasonable average figure for the "bottom 390" $2.5 billion, adding all that plus the top 10, we get an astronomical $1.291 trillon (with a "T") for the collective wealth of our top 400. I believe that to be a conservative estimate. Someone with access to all the fortunes could arrive at a more accurate figure.

So rounding up to the nearest hundred billion we have 400 people owning $1.3 trillion in fortune. Just for giggles, let's now parse that out as a percentage of the total population of the United States....

Assuming 325 million as a good figure that comes to 0.0000123%. That infinitesimally small percentage of the population owns something like 2% of the country's private assets.

Anyone else think that's just plain wrong?

[honestabe8]

Only if I am not one of them